Senator John Kerry started the debate smooth and confident. He took the time to outline his policies with more specifics than previous given, at least during primetime. John Kerry clearly showed the skills of his rhetoric against the incumbent President George W. Bush.
Bush seemed uncomfortable and on his toes through the first hour of the debate. John Kerry pointed out many flaws and mistakes that the Bush Administration have made during their years in office.
Bush repeatedly made notions to the idea of a Kerry “flip-flop” policy, however it never took a solidified hold on the debate. Kerry specifically addressed his positions on all the issues pointed out. For the first sixty minutes of the debate, Kerry pounded away at Bush and ultimately maintained the offensive while Bush was forced to the defensive. One would think that Bush would be semi-comfortable with this position, since it’s what his administration has been doing since initiating the conflict in Iraq. However, he fumbled multiple times and in the end, gave the edge to Kerry.
Bush did, admittedly, do better than he had done in the 2000 debates with Vice President Al Gore. He easily commented on and was able to pronounce the names of multiple world leaders and specific regions of the world.
It seems that the GOP spin-machine is faltering. All President Bush reiterated throughout the entire debate is that Kerry has not offered a cohesive position. Karl Rove has to be shitting himself after Bush’s poor performance. Traditionally, the GOP has been able to offer a cohesive message coming from their party, but Bush was not able to articulate them at all.
Finally, what does "transhipment of nuclear weapons" mean?
Overall, Bush sucked it up because of three main things:
"The military as a whole supports the Iraq war," Mr. Feaver says, noting a historical tendency of troops to back the commander in chief in wartime. "But you can go across the military and find pockets where they are more ambivalent," he says, especially among the National Guard and Reserve. "The war has not gone as swimmingly as they thought, and that has caused disaffection. One Marine officer in Ramadi who had lost several men said he was thinking about throwing his medals over the White House wall. "Nobody I know wants Bush," says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, "This whole war was based on lies." Like several others interviewed, his animosity centered on a belief that the war lacked a clear purpose even as it took a tremendous toll on US troops, many of whom are in Iraq involuntarily under "stop loss" orders that keep them in the service for months beyond their scheduled exit in order to keep units together during deployments. "There's no clear definition of why we came here," says Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill. "First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr's militia," he said. Specialist Swink, who comes from a family of both Democrats and Republicans, plans to vote for Kerry. "Kerry protested the war in Vietnam. He is the one to end this stuff, to lead to our exit of Iraq," he said.Basically what we are seeing is the overall discontent that DOES exist within the military, just not as prevalent as in American society. Vote Kerry/Edwards on November 2nd. |W|P|109634489406675858|W|P|A strident minority: anti-Bush US troops in Iraq|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict."This seems like it would be deeply damaging to any Bush Administration claim that the Iraq war was justified and that a sufficient strategy was formulated for actions after Saddam Hussein's regime was removed. The reports went on to say, according to the Times:
"One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said."This is pretty much the current situation that exists in Iraq, particularly the issue of an insurgent force. The only thing that seems to be glaringly false, at least now because of new intelligence, is the assertion or hypothesis that existing terrorist groups would wage guerilla warfare. It is insane to think that there were strong existing terrorist cells in Iraq because of the despot they operated under desired such a strong control over the people of Iraq. Saddam would not have allowed any group, whether they supported him or not, to act independently as a quasi-military force because they could pose a threat to his regime and control over the nation. Overall, this just seems to further corroborate what has been said in most democratic circles already: Bush knew the risks going into Iraq and the inconclusiveness of the intelligence, yet still decided to do it. Whether it was based on avenging what happened during his father's administration, as Times columnist Maureen Dowd says; or their moralist and "God told me to do it" approach, now the American public can become more aware of the problems inherent within this administration at so many different levels. Just a few more reasons to vote Kerry/Edwards on November 2nd. EDIT: A link to the story can be found here (membership required). |W|P|109634307279120602|W|P|Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"If our notion of citizenship is bound up in the legacy of citizenship as a white, male, and propertied individual exercises their interest in the name of universals, can citizenship be global, plural, and multicultural and still be what it is?"I was dumbfounded. I didn't know how to answer the question, and I still don't. However, I think it is a question that follow me and spur my response to certain international issues and my thoughts and attitudes towards them. Deep down I want to say it is possible, but I genuinely do not know the answer. However, in my next posts and those way down the road, I hope to keep this question in the focus of my answers to certain issues. This pivotal question could shape the way democracy, at least in the American sense, is globalized; and how American citizens and those with the same attitudes are able to be effective global citizens. |W|P|109599179232734958|W|P|Global citizenship versus individualism|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com